Auditory feedback decreases timing variability for discontinuous and continuous motor tasks in autistic adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Autistic individuals demonstrate greater variability and timing error in their motor performance than neurotypical individuals, likely due at least in part to atypical cerebellar characteristics and connectivity. These motor difficulties may differentially affect discrete as opposed to continuous movements in autistic individuals. Augmented auditory feedback has the potential to aid motor timing and variability due to intact auditory-motor pathways in autism and high sensitivity in autistic individuals to auditory stimuli. Methods: This experiment investigated whether there were differences in timing accuracy and variability in autistic adults as a function of task (discontinuous vs. continuous movements) and condition (augmented auditory feedback vs. no auditory feedback) in a synchronization-continuation paradigm. Ten autistic young adults aged 17-27 years of age completed the within-subjects study that involved drawing circles at 800 milliseconds intervals on a touch screen. In the discontinuous task, participants traced a series of discrete circles and paused at the top of each circle for at least 60 milliseconds. In the continuous task, participants traced the circles without pausing. Participants traced circles in either a non-auditory condition, or an auditory condition in which they heard a tone each time that they completed a circle drawing. Results: Participants had significantly better timing accuracy on the continuous timing task as opposed to the discontinuous task. Timing consistency was significantly higher for tasks performed with auditory feedback. Discussion: This research reveals that motor difficulties in autistic individuals affect discrete timing tasks more than continuous tasks, and provides evidence that augmented auditory feedback may be able to mitigate some of the timing variability present in autistic persons' movements. These results provide support for future investigation on the use of music-based therapies involving auditory feedback to address motor dysfunction in autistic individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".